02-24-75 PC Minutes Y��7
MINUTES OF THE GOLDEN VALLEY -
PLANNIN6 COMMISSION
February 24, 1975
A regular meeting of the Gotden Valtey Planning Commission was held at 7:30 P.M.
on Monday, February 24, 1975 at the Civic Center, 7800 Gotden Valley Road,
Golden Valley, Minnesota.
Chairman Ron Edstrom presided and the following members were present:
Ccxnmissioners Christiansen, Hakala, Hughes, Leonard, Lundsgaard, and Sehlin.
Atso present were Car1 Dale, Consultant, a�d Jon Westiake, staff inember.
Mernbers absent: Cornmissioner Herje. `
1 . APPROVAL OF MINUTES: MOVED by Christiansen, seeonded by Hughes,
carried unanimously, to approve the minutes of the February 10, 1975 Planning
Commission meeting as asnended as follows: Page 1 , Item #2, paragraph 1 add to
last sentence The Plannin Commission noted that no me�ers of the Human Ri hts
Carmission were present. Page 2, Paragraph , last sentence, change conceded
to a reed.
2. WAIVER OF THE PLATTING ORDINANCE
Praperty zoned Comnercial (Divide and Combi»e)
Premier Realty, Ync. (Red Lobster Restaurant)
89�0 Gotden Valley Road
The proposal is on a corr+er lot which wouid contain 100,243 feet witt� a
frontage on Gotden Valley Road of 240 feet and 434.5 feet on Decatur Avenue.
The remaining parcel woutd contain 297,99� square feet with a frontage of
172 feet on, Golden Valley Road.
Messrs. Wiltiam Skarborough of Premier Realty, Inc. and Robert Greenan of
Red Lobster were present. Mr. Skarborough, property owner, indicated at present
he has no plan for the remaining property.
The Ptanning Cortmission noted the Comprehensive Plan would allow this type of
restaurant use. The proponent is providing 143 parking spaces (the present
ordinance arould require 96 parking spaces, and the new ardinance 106 spaces).
It was moved by Nakaia, seconded by Sehlin, carried unanimously, to recommend
approval of the waiver of the Platting Ordinance as requested.
3. PLANNEO UNIT OEVELOPMENT — INFORMATIONAL HEARING
P.U.D. #15 Concept Ptan
Applicant: DOC, Inc.
Location: 5b15 Olson Memorial Highway
Rroposal: 20 Townhouse Units on 5+ Acres
Ron Edstrom, Chairman of the Planning Cornmission, explained to the residents
present what Pianned Unit Development is and the proced�are the proponent
fallows regarding P.U.D.
p��
f.
Planning Commission
February 24, 1975 page 2
Carl Date, Cansultant, then reviewed the following Planning Considerations:
"1 . Proposal:
I`t is proposed to develop 20 two bedroom (with den) units on this 5•�+ acres
of property. The buiiding type is a form of what is comnonly called a
''patio" styte which, in this case, is a form of attached or semi-detached
tvJO-f�nily structures, A rather unique site design enabie a targer percent-
age of open space (61%) and this includes an enclosed parking plan which
greatly minimizes land area taken by open, exterior parking (3.6 spaces per
unit provided for total development). While ptans submitted to date are
still somewhat generat , it v�ould appear that the intention is for an except-
ionaliy high-quality (and cost) project which also includes quite a variety
of on-site recreationai facilities and a ''formal" pond as part of the land-
scape treatrr�nt.
2. Comprehensive Municipal Plan:
The City Pian calis for the site to be low-density residential with an
�ndication that a planned unit development (PUO) approach might be appropriate
{�.e. a PUD approach to site design might be as appropriate or more appropriate
than a ''standard'' single family hcxne subdivision development). At only four
(4) units per acre, the current PUD proposal is of low density and, in general ,
seem to conform to the City Plan as it currentty exists. The PUD is in the
form of "ctustered'' housing which gives the added bonus of larger green space
areas and a variety of on-site recreational fieatures. Further, the amount of
' -land devoted to access drives, streets, and parking is quite tow being only
14% of the totat site area (a typical standard subdivision design would require
or more).
3. Planning Considerations:
Based upon a review of preliminary plans suk�nnitted to date, it would seem
that this project could be an excellent addition to the Civic Environment
subject, of course, to a later review of plan detaits y�t to be subrnitted.
Traffic generation should be no special problem since it would be essentially
the same as for a standard single-family home plat; the City Engineer may,
however, wish to ccxrrnent upon specific access drive tocations and the proposed
street cross-section (width and type). At this time, there wowld appear to be
no major planning problems involved which could not be overcome by proper
attention to detail as plans are further developed.
Tbe greatest effeet will be on Qroperty owners to the east and west of the
_ site; these pr°operties consist of rather large and irregular shaped lots wh�i�h
might be more intensely developed in the future; the question becomes one of
properly relating this current PUD development in terms of land use ccxnpatibility,
fa�ture access, and the like. It should be demonstrated that the totat area
involved (general vicinity) can be fully and properTy developed and that the
current PUQ does not isotate land parcels or atherwise conflict with area-wide
development potential and needs.
���
ry'>s��
Planning Commission
F�bruary 24, 1975 page 3
If prel�minary or sketch plan approval .is considered, other considerations
wili later be that of hoasing policy, publie recreation plans and progr�ns,
various plan details, specific PUO permit requirements and conditions, and
the tike.
4. Summary
Our initial response is to suggest that this is one of the more imaginative
residentiat plan proposals submitted in recent months and seemingly a very
good design response to the environmentat goals outtined in the Comprehensive
Munieipal Ptan. A first consideration, however, should be that of assuring no
confticts with plans for the proper development of adjacent and nearby land
parcels." -
In discussing the Planning Considerations the Comnission discussed the setling
price of these units and whether there was a market in Golden Valley for this
type of unit. Because of the cost of the units the Commission discussed their
housing policy. Mr. Dale indicated that he felt that the Metropolitan Council
would feel in projects of this size housing should not be r�ixed. The Planning
Comnission also discussed traffic and it was noted this development would produce
no more traffic than single detached homes platted on this acreage.
The proponent, Mr. Bill Swensson, then discussed the proposat with the Planning
Commission. They are planning to build 1� two story—twoo unit buildings fior a total
of 20 units which will be sold as condominiums with a price range of approximately
$6�,000 to $70,000. There will also be a smail caretaker' s apartment in the
corr�lex. The units will have no basement. Each unit will have two bedrooms,
study, and a fireplace. The exterior is brick with some rough sawrt cedar.
There will be an outdoor swimming pool , fountain pond, and above the 40—car
underground garage there wiil be a tennis court and putting green. An elevator
will run from the garage to the recreation area and will also go to the second
story units which will be connected by a walkway. This second story walkway
witt be above the grownd itoor walkway. The exterior parking will be handted in
five separafie clusters for a total of 32 outside spaces. The site is 5.�+ acres
with the buitding occupying 6�, parking and driveway I4%, pond 8%, recreational
area 11%, and 61� will be open space. The perimeter of the site will be teft in
a natural state. Mr. Swensson reviewed some of the questions raised at the
neighborhood meeting as foltows: adeqaate water and sewer for the area, drainage,
ponding, and traffic. Mr. Swensson indicated his answers to the above points
raised by the residents. Since traffic was such a large issue he indieated in
talking to the Metro Council that these proposed units will contain two people
which woutd generate 6.1 trips�day, while a single f�nily detached hcxne generates
12.3 trips/day.
The following eoncerns were expressed by the residents present:
Mr. and Mrs. Fiorentino, 5630 Woodstock Ave. , indicated they were concerned about
the nup�ber af �tr�its for this property, zoning of property is residential , would
like single family homes, traffic is a major probt�n in the area and this witl
increase the probtem. This type of proposal is spot zoning. Mr. Ktemz,
435 Yosemite Ave., indicated traffic in Golden Valley is a growing probtem and
this area has a severe traffic probiem. Or. Schut, 434 Yos�nite Ave., expressed
cancern about the large parcet he owns to the east of this proposal , which will
lose its value if this development is approved. �r. Schut then acted as spokesman
��
Pianning Commission
February 24, 1975 page 4
for the reside�ts and dist�ibuted to the Planning Comnission a list containing
concerns from the neighborhood-meeting with the devetoper. The concerns are listed
as follows by the headings un�er which there were subtopics.
l . Traffic 6. Alternative use for property
2. Water drainage 7. Finaneing
3. Sewer 8. Miscellaneous
4. Zoning 9. Suggested requests by gW���sty
5. Environmentat Deterioration
The Planning Commission discussed these topics with the r�sidents and asked that
a copy be attached to the Planning Commission minutes when forwarded to the Council .
Mr. and Mrs. Steinbrueck, 5536 Loring Lane, asked what happened to the road that
was proposed at the time the apartment buiidings were 6uiit to the south of
Yosemite Circle which was to extend east to Turners Crossroad. Atso, the safety
of school children in the area is endangered because of traffic. Mr. Sunness,
5620 Woodstock Ave., asked when they will get a railroad crossing sign on Turners
Crossroad. Mr. Henken, 5520 Loring Lane, expressed concern about traffic and would
like to see a ''No Through Traffic from 7-9 A.M." sign. Mr. Crelly, 572b Woodstock
stated many peopie mis—take the ra�p turn leading to Highway 1Q0 at entrance to
this area and cut throagh this area for work in St. Louis Park south of Highway 12
on Turners Crossroad.
Mr. Bavolak, owner of subject property, said he would split the prop�rty into lots
if this proposal was not approved. Also, there is a gravet base below the bad
soii. Aroother resident who iived in this area at one tfine had indicated he likes
to see a goc�d development such as this and if the residents want the iand to
remain andeveloped, they could hetp pay the taxes.
The Planning Comnission in discussing the proposal referred to the Ccunprehensive
� Plan for this area and a� o discussed the housing palicy of the Planning Commission,
tess density, ponding area shouid be designed to be more natural , drainage, etevation
of the units including the chimneys, the securit� gate, and targe lots adjacent to
this parcet will be land locked. If the concept request is approved by the
Planning Cannission and Council , the Planning Comnission would request that the
proponent appear before the Park and Recreation Camnission, Safety Council ,
Environmental Ccmmission, and other comnissions, depending upon drainage, etc.
Also, if the proponent taiks to other governmentai agencies outside the comrx�nity
he should make certain they send a letter to the City regarding their requirements.
Pointing out that the concept is in conformanee with the Comprehensive Plan, it
was moved by Landsgaard, seconded by Christiansen that the Planning Corrmission
recommend concept plan approval for 20 units for P.U.D. #15 and that the Planning
C�ission waive tMeir policy regarding housing fof this particular request.
It was then moved by Makala, seconded by Leonard to �nend the original motion to
allow up to 18 units for P.U.D. #15. Upon roil calt vote being taken on the
amended motion, the foltowing voted in favor thereof: Leonard and Hakala; and
the following voted against the s�ne: Christiansen, lundsgaard, Sehlin, and Hughes.
The amended motion did not carry. •
Upon vote being taken on the original m�tion, the foltowing voted in favor thereof:
Christiansen, Leonard, Lundsgaard, Sehlin, Hughes, and Hakata; and the foliowing
voted against the same: None. The motion carried unanimousTy.
��-��
Planning Commission
February 24, 1975 page 5
Because of the great concern by the residents with respect to traffic atready
present in the area, it was moved by Sehlin, seconded by Leonard, carried
unanimously fihat the Planning Commission point this out to the City Councit and
ask the Council to direct the staff to study this area regarding traffic and to
provide a traffic count at the following locations: 1) Yosemite Aveneae and
the service drive, 2) North of Loring Lane on Turners Crossroad, and 3� North
of Gtenwood Avenue on Turners Crossroad.
4. VALLEY SQUARE AREA
Jon Westlake informed the Pianning Cammission that the City Council at their
February 18, 1975 meeting asked the Ccunmission to recomnend to the Cauncil the
boundary lines of the Valley Square area and also to investigate the possibility
of a moratorium for the Valley Square Area.
(a) Vatley Square Boundary Area
The Planning Commission discussed with Carl Dale the boundaries of the Ualley
Square area and after discussion it was felt that a final boundary could not be
established untit the actual planning of the area. Therefore, a somewhat targe
boundary was estabtished by Kelly �rive on the east, south side of Highway 55,
south of Tenth Avenue North, and east of 800ne Avenue North.
It was moved by leonard, secanded by Christiansen, carried unanimousty to define
the boundary area as described above for the Valley Square area.
(b) Constructior► Moratorium
Carl Dale distributed to the Planning Commission a report regarding Construction
Maratoriums as a gaide for the Vatley Square area.
It was moved by Christiansen, seconded by Sehlin, carried unaairnously, due to
lateness of the hour, to ptace this report in the Planning Commission minutes as
listed below and that the Ptanning Cc>mnission will discuss this report at the
next meeting.
''Subject: Construction Moratoriums
For planning, public cost controt , and other reasons, some ccmmunities have imposed
a t�nporary morato�ium on issuance of building permits and zoni�g applications.
Such efforts have met with varying degrees of success. hloratoriums have included
a range from total comrt�ar�ity development, through apartments only, to small ,
special purpose projects such as an improvement�renovation plar► and progr�n for
an older conmercial area.
Always, there is the 1ega1 question of authority and legal opinions seem to vary
with the specifics of the situation. While some rnoratoriums have resulted in
serious law suits (i .e., Mir�neapotis, Bloomington, etc.), most have been under—
taken without legal repercussions and with some degree of success. It has been
our experience that moratoriums on building and rezoning in alder comnercial
areas, while an ir�rovement plan and progr�n are being developed, are quite
successful ; for one reason, rr�ost tand owners and tenants are reluctant, in any
event, to further invest in property which, by public policy, may soon face
changes in the environmental situatian (physical , economic, other).
4� .
Planning Comnission
February 24, 1975 page 6
While 1ega1 advice should be secured on this subject, it has been our experience
that a corrmercial development moratorium can be successful under the following
conditions:
a) A clear and specific resolution is adopted by the governing body outlining
the parpose, intent, and public need.
b} The moratorium is temporary and set for a reasonabie and defendable period of time.
c) Specific actions are taken during the moratorium period which enables i#:s
lifting at the specified time. A rraratorium loses its effectiveness and public
credibility if such action is not taken (i .e., recent ex�mple in Eden Prairie�.
It is suggested here that a moratorium on development and rezoning in the general
vicinity of the Civic Center wnuad be in order and in the general public interest
but only under the above noted conditions plus a sincere and positive resolve by
the Planning Ccxrmission and City Council that an improvement/renovation plan and
program will be undertaken. It has also been our experience that such a resolve
and consensus is required from the land owners and tenants of the area involved
to accorrp�lish a successful improvement progr�n.
�proach to Downtown Planninq and Development
A. Who Wou1d be Invotved?
In most instances, we recommend a ''te�n" approach involving Planners, Archi—
tects, Engineers (civil , traffic, tighting) , Landscape Architects, Market evaluation
(if needed) , and other specialized talent and expertise as required by the
situation ar�d degree of difficuity invoived. Our office can pravide al� of these
services or the Client may utitize different ''team'' members of their own choice.
(For ex�nple, you might wish to utilize your own full—time City Engineer or
existing Engineering Consultant.)
B. Services Offered.
1 . Generat Project Planning, Coordination, and Construction Inspection.
(Our rimar job is to provide an over—alt CBO Plan that is workabte and
recommend a practical development progr�rr for its implementation; this
pri mary functi on r�nai ns the same regardl ess of the "tear�'' rr�mbershi p
although certain modificatiar�s may result in construction inspection phase.)
2. Parking Surveys and Recommendations (usually an essential part of any
Dowr�tawr� irr�roverr�nt and renovation progr�n).
3• Oetailed plans and specifications for constructi�n of pubtic irrQrovements.
4. Assistance in setecting a suitable method for project financing (including
appiication for Federal grant if applicable).
5• Marketing assistance as needed (related to problems of busiaess during
construction, downtown eacpansion or change in use plans, cot1ective
advertising if needed, and the like).
6. Assistance to land owners and tenants as desired concerning architectura]
"theme'', building renovation, relationship to the total downtown
environment and other.
7. Civil Engineering (if not provided by Client).
8. Street and other lighting consultation (if needed).
� �
��
Ptanning Comnission
February 24, 1975 page 7
9. Architecture and �andscape Architecture as needed depending upon the
nature and degree of Downtown "beautification�� elements selected.
10. Presentation of plans and progr�ns at various meetings as directed
including any required pubtic hearings.
C. Philosophy of CBD Ptanning.
The rimar purpose of Downtown irr�rovement should be to benefit the business
interests invotved; withbut the support of affected property owners and tenants,
achievements and practical results will be minimal. The project should be practical
and have a satisfactory cost/benefit ratio (i.e., the economic benefits derived
should justify the cost of project improvements both public and private).
Other but secondary reasons for CBD irr�rovements include:
%` Civic pride and identification.
-° Local tax and employment benefits.
%` General environmental considerations such as the halt to physical and environ—
mental deterioration bath within the CBD and adjacent and nearby residentiat or
other areas.
* Providing visual , beutifieation el�nts when the opportunity presents itself
as part of required non—visual public improvements such as new sewer and water
(utility) ir�rovements. Even a needed new sidewalk can be visuatly improved
with the variety of surface techniques and colors available.
� Maintenance of a competitive Downtown such that premature comnercial developm�nt
elsewhere in the community or trade area does not create other environmental
and tand use probtems which may tend to even further delay a ,potential for
Downtawn improvements.
�� So�l�e parking and traffic problems.
D. Some Things to be Avoided.
1 . Downtown improvements should be aimed to satisfy�customers and others who
use and invest in the CBD; they should not be merely to satisfy design ego
or assumed desires of the project planner/designer.
2. Improvements should not be beyond the scope of actual needs or the ability
to properly finance the pianned i�roverr�nts.
3• Public expenditures should not exceed that which is needed to produce a
maximum of response from the private sector of the economy (creative use
of public funds as an aid to maximizing general confidence in the Downtown).
4. Oesign flaws noted in certain Downtown ir�rovement projects such as
children's play areas which seem interesti�g to the designer but nc�t to
the children who might play in tMem. Others include unshaded rest benches,
unimaginative street tighting, rest benches which are not ��mnfortable or
placed in poor locations, use of design fiorms which do not appeat to
shoppers and others.
5• Design elements should be unique and appropriate to the specifics of the
local situation; what has prorren successfut in one flowntown may or may
not be equally suceessful �lsewhere.
6. Traffic and/or parking solutions that are too ccxnplicated and �a�ritating
to customers and other users and visitors to the Downtown.
�P�
Planning Cornmission
February 24, 1975 page 8
7. tack of diversity and "softness" in design of the visttat elements.
$. The use of expensive sculpture or other design features that are not
necessary and may even tend to reduce the effectiveness of the final
environment desired (physical , economic, and social).
9. Over—sirr�lification or under—estimating the nature of the CBD problem
and the problem solution. (In most cases, there are a variet� of
interrelated probtems and ►►bre than one simple solution).�'
5• VALLEE D'OR (P.U.D. #5)
The Chairman of the Planning Conmission described a letter from the City Attorney
regarding the surety bond of P.U.D. #5. This letter was sent to the Planning
Commission because of a request by the Cc►nmission when they discussed a request
by First Wisconsin Mortgage Company for Vallee D'or at the February 10, 1975
Planning Commission meeting. The letter indicates that the City Attorn�y
believes that the appropriate legal action is being taken to protect the City' s
interests.
The Planning Commission received and filed the above mentioned letter.
6. PLANNING COMMISSION BY—LAWS
The Plan�ing Commission discussed their By—Laws, noting the following changes:
Sect9on 1 . Change February to April .
Section 8. Change first sentence to read as foliows: A record shali be ke`pt of
those Commission m�nbers presenfi and those absent for each Planning
Commission Meeting.
Section 11 . First sentence — CMange Feb�uary to April .
Section 11 . Last sentence — Change to read as follows: The City staff representative
of the Planninq Comnission shall serve as the Recordinq Secretarv•
The Chairman of the Planning Comnission noted Section 17 of the By—laws which
refers to �nenc�nents, after which the Chairman asked that these proposed changes
be placed on the agenda for the next regularly scheduled Planning Corrimission
meeting so that the changes can be officialty acted upon.
There being no further business to come before the meeting, it was on motion,
duly seconded, adjour�ed at 11:4f? P.M.
..__.-.--.__ r
+ �.
Ch irman Ron Edst om Secr tary athry� Ne e